Neeld is not the problem

[Cheap Seats 3,310]

You miss the point clearly. This is not about wins and losses, it is about how you lose and the extent and consistency in the way you lose. If you can accept that, then good luck to you, but I'll tell you for free, the AFL aint gonna put up with it much longer and neither should they.

yeh yeh yeh I understand it's all about how we lose

You idiots - you are all talk about concepts and where the club should be without providing any solid discussion about why we aren't in that position

So your not talking about wins and losses your talking about how the team loses. Talk about petty and you don't even acknowledge where the team is at from a development stand point because it doesn't suit your argument

You Talk about me missing the point, when the whole point of this thread is to discuss issues other THEN NEELD himself

Keep telling me stories and logic about how the MFC should be represente by proud traditions and we shouldn't be in this position after 150 odd yers of existence - I'll deal with reality each week and the reality is on Monday 8 - 10 blokes will take the field with 0 - 40 games and you expect a consistent team performance

Thanks for being mind numbing

Edited June 5, 2013 by Unleash Hell

[Cheap Seats 3,310]

I just watched the Hassa Mann interview on Fox Sports, and they had a clip of the 3rd quarter huddle and Neeld walked behind on Watts and said something and when he went to the front to address the players Watts glared at with utter contempt, you could see hate in his eyes, I have never seen a player glare at coach like that in all my time watching footy, I would say he lost the

s the playing group half way through last season, they need to make a move before the end of the season.

Probably told him to get a kick and stop being a [censored] and Watts feeling were hurt

[dees189227 12,373]

Probably told him to get a kick and stop being a [censored] and Watts feeling were hurt

Probably told him to lay a tackle and fair enough. Jack didnt lay 1 tackle last week.

[Cheap Seats 3,310]

You are completely off the mark here. My position has always been based on Neeld's performance as a coach (which admittedly includes his team's performance, in addition to other factors).

I've never said it is all about wins and losses and I'd appreciate you not misrepresenting my position.

I can no longer bang my head against a brick wall so am not going to argue any further. It's a waste of my time.

I have set out my thoughts and my position. Feel free to go back and read them and you will understand how your comment above is so far off the mark.

Thanks for missing the point of this thread which is to dicuss factor other then Neeld

I will go back and look over our discussion and make comment - But you and Iv'a have basically offered little fact as to why we as a club are where we are and what we are doing to improve it...

Your whole augment is Neeld is a failure and you refuse to listen to any debate and offer nothing but opinion to prove your points

You refuse to accept the Club Neeld took over was damaged and it is going to take time to fix

You refuse to accept so called leaders like -Green, Davey, Jamar, Dunn, Moloney, Rivers off the top of my head I am sure there are a few more (I will leave out Frawley, Sylvia and Garland as they have stood up under Neeld) are not consistent AFL players and the majority were passed their used by date

I don't care how they were treated as this is not the discussion

You refuse to accept drafting and list management was poor before Neeld

So in a nut shell I get your argument - you say Neeld should be doing better with the list that he has but you refuse to identify the list as it stands at the moment and you over estimate the production it should be producing

You don't acknowledge my question when you say the list is underperoming under Neeld - if so who should we have beaten in the last 10 games?

You judge the performance of the list under Neeld against sides that have been together longer then the majority of our playing group has AFL experience

I get your argument Scoop and that's why I won't listen

Edited June 5, 2013 by Unleash Hell

[mjt 640]

yeh yeh yeh I understand it's all about how we lose

You idiots - you are all talk about concepts and where the club should be without providing any solid discussion about why we aren't in that position

So your not talking about wins and losses your talking about how the team loses. Talk about petty and you don't even acknowledge where the team is at from a development stand point because it doesn't suit your argument

You Talk about me missing the point, when the whole point of this thread is to discuss issues other THEN NEELD himself

Keep telling me stories and logic about how the MFC should be represente by proud traditions and we shouldn't be in this position after 150 odd yers of existence - I'll deal with reality each week and the reality is on Monday 8 - 10 blokes will take the field with 0 - 40 games and you expect a consistent team performance

Thanks for being mind numbing

we got ourselves a nut job here, how anyone could defend Neelds win lost ratio beggars belief, let alone the losing margins, no real Demon could defend his coaching record, he makes Bailey look like Lethal Leigh.

[Cheap Seats 3,310]

we got ourselves a nut job here, how anyone could defend Neelds win lost ratio beggars belief, let alone the losing margins, no real Demon could defend his coaching record, he makes Bailey look like Lethal Leigh.

Thanks for your quality contribution

I will not waste my time with another post with as little substance as yours again - If you'd like to take the time to read this thrad you'll realise I am not out to defend Neeld

I am pointing out factors to why the performance of the team is where we are at - if you choose not to read it and discuss it then don't waste my time

This thread is about factors other then Neeld which are causing such poor on field results

If you want to blame Neeld for all the woes at the club go to the Time to go Neeld thread

Thanks for playing

[DeeVoted 583]

Team A ave age 23yrs Total games Played 999

Team B ave Age 24yrs Total Games played 1500

Team B has overall played more games and slightly older, So therefore Team B expected to win

WRONG!

Team A = Played finals. missed on a GF on the last kick of the day

Team B cant get a kick to save themselves

The 2 Hawthorn teams that played both Team A + B had approx the same ave age and games played in both games.

(their Ave 26yrs 2600 games in total)

I never bought that line either from Bailey or now Neeld. Nor from anyone else.

If the TALENT is there, is doesnt matter about age or games, its about how GOOD the list is.

or

To take another stance, how good the coach is, and gets the most out of what he has.

I'd back Team A to belt the hell out of Team B,every day of the week, even though Team B has played more games and is slightly older.

Simple fact is = Talent

Yes Team A = 1987 coached by Northey, it was younger played less games.

Team B last week, coached by Neeld.

Right now we could put a line through about 8 players that play each week, or are in and out, as NOT up to it.

Could a new coach get Team B to beat Team A, I doubt it.

A new coach may get Team B to play slightly better, thats about it.

Either Neeld or a new coach will cut the list further. Simple fact is we have too many NQR.

If Neeld has lost the confidence of the players and the board, his days are up.

If not we hang tough, and get more players to improve what we have and move out the NQR.

There is only one coach I know that could get this group to punch above its weight, but as fate would have it

he isnt alive.

[Cheap Seats 3,310]

Scoop & Iv'a

Before we get caught in the same crap circule argument about how we are losing - (you are obviously hanging your hats on the margins that we lose)

I still believe my experience and lack of leadership argument is relevant and the only comparisons would be GC & GWS in their first and second years

The Dogs and Saints may even come in to debate but it depends if you rate our list as healthy as theirs (which I believe it isn't)

[The Reverend 1,736]

I just watched the Hassa Mann interview on Fox Sports, and they had a clip of the 3rd quarter huddle and Neeld walked behind on Watts and said something and when he went to the front to address the players Watts glared at with utter contempt, you could see hate in his eyes, I have never seen a player glare at coach like that in all my time watching footy, I would say he lost the

s the playing group half way through last season, they need to make a move before the end of the season.

Says more about Watts than Neeld. I know which one I'd be getting rid of. FFS if the coach can't speak to a player about his performance without worrying about upsetting him then it's time for me to start watching lawn bowls. Perhaps Neeld should run out on the ground and lay some tackles for Watts so he doesn't have to get his hands dirty.

Give me a break!

[iv'a worn smith 1,979]

yeh yeh yeh I understand it's all about how we lose

You idiots - you are all talk about concepts and where the club should be without providing any solid discussion about why we aren't in that position

So your not talking about wins and losses your talking about how the team loses. Talk about petty and you don't even acknowledge where the team is at from a development stand point because it doesn't suit your argument

You Talk about me missing the point, when the whole point of this thread is to discuss issues other THEN NEELD himself

Keep telling me stories and logic about how the MFC should be represente by proud traditions and we shouldn't be in this position after 150 odd yers of existence - I'll deal with reality each week and the reality is on Monday 8 - 10 blokes will take the field with 0 - 40 games and you expect a consistent team performance

Thanks for being mind numbing

Talk about quality contributions. Quote [you idiots]. You then say the whole point of the thread is to discuss issues other then (sic) Neeld himself. The title of the topic is "Neeld is not the problem".

And mate, I never spoke about the so-called "proud traditions" Quite the contrary, I spoke about the business of modern day elite football.

Your correct, my mind is certainly numb and you are the cause. Give me strength please

[Gorgoroth 12,925]

Yeah, calling people idiots then using "then" instead of "than" in two consecutive posts......

Quality.

[pm24 451]

Let's compare like with like shall we. They are expansion teams, the AFL's baby, totally supported by the AFL. We have been around just a little bit longer than that and that is what makes our position so serious.

So you're saying that just because we have an established club, that our list, though just about as inexperienced as GC and GWS, which has a head coach in his second year, shouldn't be facing problems with player buy in because the club is established? If your main point is that we've got serious cultural problems that need to be addressed and that those cultural issues are contributing to the fact that players may not be buying in as quickly, then I could kind of agree. Though I'm not sure if that is what you mean?

Are you trying to highlight how serious the cultural issues within the club are, or are you laying blame on Neeld for the players not buying in irrespective of the cultural factors??

[pm24 451]

Settle down Jazza. I was not making the comparison, just responding to someone who was making an erroneous comparison.

So my comparison was erroneous on the basis that we are an established club versus GWS and GC being start up clubs??? You were arguing that the margin of the loss reflects a lack of buy in by the players.

I was contesting that argument by saying, if that was the case, that argument can be extended to GWS and GC during the last few years because their losing margins were around that mark. I'm only applying your argument to other contexts. Nothing erroneous with that except that it does nothing the strengthen your argument.

You were suggesting the following: Losing Margin = level of buy in from the players.

My point was, if that is true, then there was a lack of player buy in at GWS and GC (first two seasons) because they had a large average losing margin. The fact that we have an established club has nothing to do with a players buy in to a coach in their 2nd year. If it does, explain how?

[PJ_12345 1,098]

Yeah, calling people idiots then using "then" instead of "than" in two consecutive posts......

Quality.

Ironic in that you're highlighting irony in another user's post where they called people idiots whilst containing gramatical errors, only for you to make an error by putting too many dot points in your ellipsis.

Quality.

[titan_uranus 24,980]

Some of the petty arguing in this thread is just ridiculous. What I guess it goes to show is how divisive Neeld is, which, whether he's a good coach or not, and whether you think he's the right man for the job or not, is not a good thing for this club right now.

Personally, the argument that we've gone backwards from last year and therefore Neeld is doing a poor job of coaching is simplistic and wrong. The idea of a J-curve is well known - sometimes you have to go backwards to go forwards. Maybe we all expected our 'backwards' period to last one year, and maybe now we're realising that, in fact, the position this club was in pre-2011 required more than 12 months turning around.

That doesn't necessarily I believe Neeld is the man for the job. But I don't agree with the argument that we necessarily needed to become better in 2013.

[iv'a worn smith 1,979]

So my comparison was erroneous on the basis that we are an established club versus GWS and GC being start up clubs??? You were arguing that the margin of the loss reflects a lack of buy in by the players.

I was contesting that argument by saying, if that was the case, that argument can be extended to GWS and GC during the last few years because their losing margins were around that mark. I'm only applying your argument to other contexts. Nothing erroneous with that except that it does nothing the strengthen your argument.

You were suggesting the following: Losing Margin = level of buy in from the players.

My point was, if that is true, then there was a lack of player buy in at GWS and GC (first two seasons) because they had a large average losing margin. The fact that we have an established club has nothing to do with a players buy in to a coach in their 2nd year. If it does, explain how?

No, I am saying you can't compare a start up teams, fully underwritten by the AFL, and made up by and large with a bunch of kids and clearly very early into their history.

The comparison is that among our ranks, we have 2 former all Australians, the likes of Sylvia, Watts, Garland, Howe, Tapscott, Grimes, Trengove, Clark and Dawes, all with a significant amount of footy behind them. Whether you consider their up to it or not now, it another matter, but they came as credentialed footballers and have been at senior level considerably longer than the bulk of the lists at GCS and GWS.

[iv'a worn smith 1,979]

Added to my previous posts, the 2 start up teams have not sustained average losing margins like ours, over the same number of games

[Fat Tony 5,221]

Some of the petty arguing in this thread is just ridiculous. What I guess it goes to show is how divisive Neeld is, which, whether he's a good coach or not, and whether you think he's the right man for the job or not, is not a good thing for this club right now.

Personally, the argument that we've gone backwards from last year and therefore Neeld is doing a poor job of coaching is simplistic and wrong. The idea of a J-curve is well known - sometimes you have to go backwards to go forwards. Maybe we all expected our 'backwards' period to last one year, and maybe now we're realising that, in fact, the position this club was in pre-2011 required more than 12 months turning around.

That doesn't necessarily I believe Neeld is the man for the job. But I don't agree with the argument that we necessarily needed to become better in 2013.

Surely nobody thought we could go backwards on one 'real' win when the opposition kicked 6.16.

Neeld is the worst coach in the history of football.

[Gorgoroth 12,925]

Ironic in that you're highlighting irony in another user's post where they called people idiots whilst containing gramatical errors, only for you to make an error by putting too many dot points in your ellipsis.

Quality.

Ha ha I always do as it pisses my wife off so now it's a ingrained habit.......

[pm24 451]

Added to my previous posts, the 2 start up teams have not sustained average losing margins like ours, over the same number of games

Are you sure about that....

GWS had a % of 46.2% at the end of last year.

GC was 56.2% in their first year.

GC lost by an average of 58 points last season (I've only done the calcs for this one), probably more the previous season. GWS probably more last season and this season given their % is lower than ours is for both years.

[Hannibal 5,814]

So you're saying that just because we have an established club, that our list, though just about as inexperienced as GC and GWS, which has a head coach in his second year, shouldn't be facing problems with player buy in because the club is established?

I think many of us have learnt a lot about list management and psychology during the disastrous Neeld appointment. In time, there should be chapters in sports books on Neeld's time at Melbourne so sporting organisations learn what not do.

I'm the first to admit that I was in favour of some of Neeld's decisions. I now question the implementation and the merits of many of those decisions. The essence of being a coach is getting the best out of individuals. The best coaches focus on what a player does well, whereas some coaches become fixated by what they do poorly. The best coaches build a player up and stroke sometimes fragile egos. They tell them that they believe in them. They'll also make the hard call, but my suspicion is that Neeld didn't positively engage many players. It beggars belief that he never had a one-on-one with Moloney. It beggars belief that he came into the club from day one and said he had no interest in his players liking him. Contrast that attitude with Ken Hinkley, who said to Kane Cornes, "I'm here to extend your career". Cornes is back to career best form. Players often have plenty of self-doubt, especially at AFL level where they're under the media and community microscope, so it's imperative that they think the coach believes in them. That they're told by the coach that he believes in them. Moloney confirmed the opposite to be true. He knew the coach didn't rate him.

The failings that Neeld saw in Gysberts, Morton, Bennell and Petterd were the same I saw. So naturally when they were moved on I wasn't outraged because I knew why. But on closer thought I'd like to know how he engaged with those players. Getting rid of Cook and Bate was a no brainer. Cook showed that he was barely VFL level and Bate was older and easier to assess. But Gysberts, a former pick 11, had won two RS nominations. He was only 20. He had shown he had AFL talent. Yes, he had faults, but in a team with the worst midfield in living memory would a Ken Hinkley come in and have said, "I rate you. I see your talent and what you can do. We have areas to work on, but I reckon we can make you an important part of our midfield moving forward." For the life of me I can't see Neeld establishing that type of rapport. Gysberts hasn't played a game for North, but he's in their top 25 or 26. They've got a good midfield and I can't help feeling we should have persisted with him, especially considering the state of ours. Petterd nearly won a game against Collingwood on QB. He's shown he has AFL talent. Yes, we also know his faults, and he turns it over by foot, but we also know his courage and marking ability. We got nothing for him. The same with Morton. And I know plenty of posters won't agree and Lord knows I can be critical of players, but here's a former pick 4, who is still young, who has shown AFL talent in his first couple of years, and we dump him for pick 88. In essence we dump him for Rodan. We'd got games into him and I can't help feeling that he was worth more than one year under a new coach. Bennell was soft and I supported getting rid of him. But I also recognise we have no decent small forwards yet the game is crying out for them. Bennell does have talent despite his failings. Was he told that we thought we could develop him into the small forward we need and reckon he can become ? I'm not advocating mollycoddling players, I'm advocating believing in them and teaching them to believe in themselves. If it's proven they're not good enough so be it, but we got rid of young players that had definitely shown at stages they've looked comfortable at the highest level.

For me it's crystal clear that Neeld isn't a nurturer. It's clear that his hard-nosed approach backfired the moment he walked through the door. He bemoans the age of our list, yet he has virtually single-handedly caused that inexperience and young age by jettisoning so many players. Morton is still young, but he'd played over 70 games. I don't believe that we needed a "rebuild of a rebuild". I believe we needed a coach that could embrace the talents of many of the players at his disposal and improve them. Sure, you have to turn some over, but he rid himself of young players that had shown something at AFL level. And we're poorer for it. In fact, we poorer for him walking through the front door.

Edited June 5, 2013 by Ben-Hur

[Dr John Dee 1,057]

Ironic in that you're highlighting irony in another user's post where they called people idiots whilst containing gramatical errors, only for you to make an error by putting too many dot points in your ellipsis.

Quality.

It's not an ellipsis, it's an aposiopesis.

Pedantry!

[bing181 9,197]

The comparison is that among our ranks, we have 2 former all Australians, the likes of Sylvia, Watts, Garland, Howe, Tapscott, Grimes, Trengove, Clark and Dawes, all with a significant amount of footy behind them. Whether you consider their up to it or not now, it another matter, but they came as credentialed footballers and have been at senior level considerably longer than the bulk of the lists at GCS and GWS.

GWS, maybe but for GC, considerably longer? From your list, Howe and Tapscott have same as/less games than the likes of Bennell and Zac Smith, while Trengove, Grimes and Watts only have 20 or so games more which I would hardly class as "considerably".

The fact remains that our list is more inexperienced than theirs, and certainly has less experience together - many of their players have been playing together under the same coach since 2010 or even 2009. (Not to mention, they also have Ablett, which is about where all comparisons start and end when it comes to getting results).

[pm24 451]

No, I am saying you can't compare a start up teams, fully underwritten by the AFL, and made up by and large with a bunch of kids and clearly very early into their history.

The comparison is that among our ranks, we have 2 former all Australians, the likes of Sylvia, Watts, Garland, Howe, Tapscott, Grimes, Trengove, Clark and Dawes, all with a significant amount of footy behind them. Whether you consider their up to it or not now, it another matter, but they came as credentialed footballers and have been at senior level considerably longer than the bulk of the lists at GCS and GWS.

You're right I mean what do Gold Coast have???? Gary Ablett Jr (Brownlow Medallist, multiple All Australian, premiership player), Jarrod Harbrow, Jarred Brennan, Michael Rishetelli (Brisbane B&F winner), Nathan Bock (All Australian), Campbell Brown (premiership player).......and Swallow, Bennell, Dixon, Lynch, O'Meara, Matera....... should I keep going.

GWS still have the leadership of Dean Brogan (premiership player), previously had Chad Cornes (premiership player) and Junior McDonald. They are the only team you could argue should be below us if you want to focus on experience and leadership etc.

But you have no basis for suggesting that we Gold Coast should be in a worse situation than us. None whatsoever.

[Return to Glory 8,412]

Says more about Watts than Neeld. I know which one I'd be getting rid of. FFS if the coach can't speak to a player about his performance without worrying about upsetting him then it's time for me to start watching lawn bowls. Perhaps Neeld should run out on the ground and lay some tackles for Watts so he doesn't have to get his hands dirty.

Give me a break!

I'm not so sure. Everyone has had a teacher who has given them a red hot bake. However, if you know that teacher genuinely shows a degree of concern or interest and values you as an individual you wear it. If there is no genuine interest in you or there have been no positives previously, you shut up shop IMO.